This is one of the potential problems of rape exceptions. If you have to make a police report, it is unlawful to make a false report. If you know your rapist ( and most do), you can either lie and break the law, or tell the truth and run a very big risk that the accused won't be convicted and you may have him fight for parental rights. This can make a horrible situation millions of times worse.

I am not sure I understand. I don't think you have to make a rape report.

If you do make a rape report and know the rapist, why is there a binary choice between lying and telling the truth. Could you not simply not tell.

However, I think I see the same situation with respect to state benefits. If you request any sort of state benefit, the government will pressure you into identifying the father and then collecting paternity from him.

I can see why someone who is rotting in jail might fight for parental rights even if they do not care about the child. Every day they spend in court is like a holiday from prison.

I don't remember exactly where, but I do remember reading that this proposed law would require a police report to back up their request for an abortion- but that was when they were going to allow a rape exception. Then they fought about it and determined there would be no rape exception.

This. If the rape exceptions requires just telling the doctor "I was raped", it's not going to be so much of an issue, but it also won't serve the purposes of those who limit ways to get abortion in the first place. Implementation of rape exceptions are problematic from any practical standpoint that I can see.

The rape exception in addition to being impractical is not defensible. If one really believes that life begins at conception - which is the argument of prolifers - then the fetus conceived of rape are innocent human beings.

If we allow some women to abort "innocent human beings" because of rape then why not allow all women to abort "innocent human beings" for other reasons?

Legitimate question, is there a point in telling the police you were raped without any intention of catching the rapist? I thought the purpose was to try get the rapist convicted. What benefit are there to filing a police report, going through what is well known to be a very difficult and upsetting process of getting a rape kit done, and repeatedly giving every last detail of your rape if not the have the rapist charged?

I would counter that, the police are there as a resource for you and not the other way around. If you want to report the rape to the police but not the rapist, then don't let the police pressure you into doing something that you don't want to do.

No I get that you don't have to tell the police who the rapist is. However, it's almost standard for rape victims to describe dealing with the police as a very trying and difficult thing to do. I don't see what the police can do for you if you ask them not to identify or arrest the rapist.

Would insurance still pay out extra to care for the victim both physically and mentally without such a report from the police or a hospital? Serious question, I'm not really that well read up on this at all. Scary shit to even think about.

I literally feel like I'm going to be sick, people at my school right now are talking about youtube drama with that idiot james charles while this is happening. Why the fuck does seemingly no one know or care about this disgusting laws and polices being put in place. What the fuck is hapenning??

Because school age kids shouldn't have to worry about that shit, the adults in office are the ones who should be fixing these problems and making the world better for the next generation, but unfortunately they spend all their time bending over and spreading their assholes open for lobbyist groups with lots of money because they are a bunch of corrupt fuck ups who have trapped everyone in a nightmare binary choice system of government where no one can ever get anything done to help the helpless.

And all you schoolmates are understandably continuing under the assumption that the people at the top are doing their jobs because why wouldn't they? You are a bunch of kids living under a system of government that I'll bet your curriculum has never explained to you properly.

We go to a catholic school so we are spoon fed the pro life anti gay anti feminist bullshit. However most of my classmates are pro choice. I know It's dumb to expect high school kids to be on top of politics but as a woman it terrifies me. I'm just bothered that no one seems to care or be aware of this. The only pro choice person that seems to care is a teacher I have, we ranted about in in private the other day.

Well, look. Even for those who support all of this, reading about this happening to everyone and following all the news and the crap politicians everywhere spew, it gets tiring. Don't get me wrong, these are important issues we NEED to discuss, and NEED to address, but we cannot keep our sanity and mental health intact if we only follow these stories day in and day out and do little else.

I've found that the more news I read and follow without breaks, without taking time for things that take my mind off of it, etc, I feel worse and worse. I start to feel helpless, I feel stressed, I feel worried, constantly.

That's no way to live. Yes, there are terrible people in the world, and even in the US. Even those who are not actual rapists or whatever, still follow and fight for policies that will hurt victims of rape and similar.

As /u/Succundo points out, this shit isn't something kids should be obsessing over or focusing on. They should be safe, comfortable, and know the outline of what goes on in the world. WHen the time comes, donating to organizations like the ACLU (which always makes me feel better, and i'm donating on Friday when I get my paycheck specifically to the Alabama ACLU and the main organization too) and supporting those who fight tirelessly for these causes are what is necessary.

But that doesn't mean kids shouldn't still take the time to be kids. Adults shouldn't take the time to watch a funny TV show or movie. To hang out with friends, enjoy the good things in the world, etc.

There will also be shit, horror, and violence in the world. That's terrible, but a fact.

Think of the good things, donate when you can, try to march when a protest is performed near you, and try to raise awareness when your school has fundraisers or the local organizations do.

Volunteer at a local shelter for victims of violence. Donate your clothes to good will. etc.

But then step back, and do other things. Yes, it sounds bad. It sounds like I am telling you to ignore what is going on, and bury your head in good things. I am not. I am telling you to retain your sanity, make an effort where you can, but otherwise don't tear yourself and sanity apart over things you cannot control.

You yourself just said your school spews hate, yet your friends know better. That alone warms my heart, and should make you feel that when your friends and fellow students have the chance, they WILL make the difference when it counts. But they won't turn themselves sick worrying over what they cannot control.

Thank you. I've been really stressed out about politics for a few weeks now and it's hard to have fun when it feels like there is going to be an apocalypse between climate change and women losing reproductive rights. i'll try to keep what you said in mind.

Remove all app notifications relating to politics, try not to read any reddit threads about this stuff, and go be yourself for a week. Then renable everything for a bit. Then repeat.

I have to force myself to take breaks from news, even marketwatch which I read to try and learn more about how my investments and future plans may play out. I just came back from about a month of not even going on reddit, much less news sites and such, mainly because I had to train my new boss at work, but also because I wanted a break for a week, and after a week I just kept ignoring the news up until recently.

I feel a lot better, and now even though I'm getting back into the thick of news and politics and shit, I will keep ensuring I take the necessary breaks.

You know when you fly in a plane, and they tell you during the emergency instructions to secure your own airmask before helping others?

Think of it like that. If your mental health is fragmented, you're worried and stressed over things you cannot control day in and day out, you'll pass out from lack of oxygen (metaphorically) before being able to help anybody, even the person next to you, be them a family member or some poor girl you never even knew existed until you read an article.

Climate change is bad, yup. But it won't kill us off today or tomorrow. Sure, 2040 is pretty close, but people are responding, and eventually the bulk of the world (even if our leaders here in teh US are still in denial and shit) will respond. Do your part by recycling, donating, and trying to buy things you need and not produce a lot of waste.

But then step away and go do something that you enjoy. Always remember to do this.

I've gotten pretty paranoid over politics recently. I know my mental health is already not doing so hot, as I''m already medicated for diagnosed depression, but I just fixate on politics so badly and it's hard to block it out even though I know I need to. You're right. I'm gonna try to work on my mental state before finals come up because I don't need that deadly combo.

Fucking Excuse me?? I'm not judging them I am simply frustrated by the fact that I feel like i'm the only one stressing out over this. i'm dead ass losing sleep because I'm worried about how things can get worse.

"if you are passionate about it in a positive manner"

It's hard to be positively passionate about something fucking horrifying.

I think what they mean is don't assume your classmates don't care. Also if you speak to people about serious subjects in a way that is amicable and informative instead of intense and freaked out then they will be more receptive to the ideas.

You sound really stressed and I personally can completely understand that. Progress is something that usually occurs slowly and I believe we are all slowly moving in the right direction. You even said most of your classmates are pro choice. That's awesome :).

It is hard for kids to think that it could be them. Most kids think they are invincible. Very little fear the worst. Most kids also don't empathize or have the rationalization to realize that it could happen to anyone, even family members.

Not everyone gets to have a normal child hood and some kids are forced to grow up quicker then others due to life experiences at those ages. The body then follows suit, it's a mess of an experience really for those that have to endure that . I'm sorry you had to go through that , but you have a much different perspective then what most kids who haven't had to go through that experience(s)

Apparently it was a "non forced" rape, so the 11 year old girl technically consented but because she's a minor the law says that she can't "actually" consent.

I'm only say this because she apparently ran away from home a lot and had the police were called on her by her mother for her leaving "without the mother's consent". All I'm saying is I don't know what this girls home life is like, or if in her opinion living with her own parent(s) may be "worse" than with the 26 y/o (rapist). I am not in anyway condoning any actions done by the rapist. I am only giving some context.

Btw before I get downvoted, I am an Ohioan, I find the abortion bill extremely regressive, 100% unnecessary and I am disgusted that I live in a state where this was voted in. I do not support the bill whatsoever. In my opinion a womans bodily autonomy supersedes an unborn humans' autonomy. Anyway, I hope this 11 year old gets the help she needs and if she has/wants to go through with the pregnancy that she survives and it doesn't ruin her mentally, physically, emotionally or otherwise.

Over 4,000 women were raped in Ohio and over 800 of them were caused by family members. I don't know how many of them resulted in pregnancy but this law will harm many women if it doesn't get stopped before July.

I am pretty pro life and I think rape victims should 100% be able to terminate. I also think her life can be endangered because of the pregnancy and she should be able to terminate. I care about her and other victims and this scares me and I also care about the unborn and I don’t think these types of discussions should be so black and white. I don’t think it’s good vs bad, right vs wrong I feel like things are so situational based that both “sides” arguments miss the mark for me..

You should look at a lot of the plain text of the laws that get passed, not just the news blurbs about them. You’d find we past many laws that are different from what they’re advertised as.

For example, having skimmed the plain text of the Georgia heartbeat law, there are several exceptions in place that would protect this girl from having to have a child, not the least of which is a doctor agreeing there’s danger to the mother. I haven’t read the plain text of the Ohio one, yet.

To be honest, abortion in the case of rape in general is something I'm still struggling with to figure out where I stand. Because as pro-life, I believe that the life starts at conception (unique genetic code being created deciding outside of environmental factors thing like hair color, height, etc.) so I don't believe that the unique life should be denied its own choice because of the choice of a rapist, but I also sympathize with the woman because her choice was taken away as well.

I guess morally I'd encourage the woman (or in this case girl) to have the child, because I want that life to be given its choice. But I'd also be willing to accept them choosing abortion in this case without condemning them or anything like that because she never had a choice. Of course it's no question if birthing the child will harm or kill the mother in this case, she shouldn't.

I understand your dilemma. It is not an easy situation. However, how do you decide who's life is more important, the 11 year old or the fetus? Why do we get a vote? Why does anyone other than the 11 year old get decide what happens to her? That is my line. Thank you for sharing your view. I didn't have it in me to read more comments on this subject today and search for your reply

To be honest, abortion in the case of rape in general is something I'm still struggling with to figure out where I stand. Because as pro-life, I believe that the life starts at conception (unique genetic code being created deciding outside of environmental factors thing like hair color, height, etc.) so I don't believe that the unique life should be denied its own choice because of the choice of a rapist, but I also sympathize with the woman because her choice was taken away as well.

I guess morally I'd encourage the woman (or in this case girl) to have the child, because I want that life to be given its choice. But I'd also be willing to accept them choosing abortion in this case without condemning them or anything like that because she never had a choice. Of course it's no question if birthing the child will harm or kill the mother in this case, she shouldn't.

But a foetus can't make a choice; you aren't giving it a choice by denying the rape victim of one. The only person that gets to chose in that scenario is the rapist.

I'm glad you at least understand that pregnancy can involve life threatening conditions, but childbirth itself holds danger itself and for some, costs a shitload. I just can't imagine seeing a woman on one hand, a bundle of cells on the other and finding it a difficult decision, in any situation.

90% of us pro-lifers see rape or potential health risks as a reasonable excuse to abort a child; furthermore, these particular cases only comprise about 1% of all abortions. Most are due to inconvenience. Maybe instead of patting yourself on the back along side the many others who think like you in this echo chamber of a reddit post, you could instead partake in civil discord with the 50% of the population that disagrees with your particular point of view. Just a thought.

lol no. fuck you and fuck your pro-life hypocritical bible thumping trash. your views are garbage and we aren’t meeting you halfway on it. 50%? It’s much much less than that. You and your wacko friends are alone. And once those old white republicans finally kick the bucket, you won’t have any more power left over us.

“Civil dialogue” at its finest. You obviously are unable to recognize political trends throughout history. Left and right switches constantly. When one gets too extreme, policies associated with the opposite side are implemented. I have 0 power over you, I could give 2 salamander-juggling fucks what you do with your body.... I just think it’s immoral to kill something without giving it a chance at life; doesn’t mean I want someone to remove all your coat hangers so you don’t get any bright ideas. Hopefully your “>50%” enacts the change you want to see.

Do you think this 11 year old should be able to abort her pregnancy? Why or why not?

Edit: let me amend this by saying : I'm not trying to be condescending. People get hot because there's a strong emotional attachment to both sides of the argument. I'm earnestly asking your opinion of the matter.

An incident report filed April 29 by the local police department reflects an interview with an employee of a "pregnancy care center," who appeared to place some of the responsibility on the 11-year old rape victim. She is "rebellious," the employee said, according to the police report, and "refuses to listen to her mother and runs away from home all the time." A separate incident report does not adequately redact the victim's name nor her home address, even though the victim is a minor.

After the arrest, the police report says the 11-year-old rape victim was counseled on "her delinquent behavior."

Yeah. There's obviously other fucking problems in Ohio too. It's no surprise they passed such a draconian abortion law with attitudes like this fully on display. Fucking sick. The lack of even basic knowledge and education about children displayed by these people is shocking. She's an 11 year old girl who's been preyed upon by an older man and the adults in her life, who are supposed to help and protect her, are obviously placing blame on her. That poor girl.

What an absolutely sickening outlook on the part of the care center. "Rebellious" - yeah, sure, some kids can be unruly and may need better supervision, but that doesn't justify putting any blame on this girl. Are people honestly so disconnected that they feel an adult somehow should have some of the guilt lifted from them just because their victim may not listen to her parents? Absolutely sick.

Do you think schools should do a background check before hiring a teacher? Why should we not also demand our government do a background check before letting people live in our communities?

This was 100% preventable. I’m quite sure this guy is a typical child molester and we’ll find out later he has a string of victims. The government failed to protect this girl from a monster who should not have been within 1,000 miles of her.

Look, you can let people in your home without caring if they are a child rapist. That’s your prerogative. I demand our government know the criminal background of those who want to come inside the country.

I can’t make you care about this girl, Nabra Hassanen, Kate Steinly, or Amy of the other thousands of girls and women who should never have been raped and/or murdered, but I do.

Yes, it says that I hold the government responsible for the safety of girls and women from people with no right to be in their vicinity. They deserve to be protected from foreign rapists. You disagree.

If you vet someone and they have no criminal history, you’ve still done your due diligence, IMO. It sucks and it’s tragic, but it’s not negligence.

Edited to add an analogy:

If there were 2 school districts and one did a pre-employment background check on a teacher who later molested a child (he had a clean record) and the other skipped the background check entirely and hired a teacher who had already had 2 convictions for child rape and went on to attack a student, I believe the latter district is then culpable in the crime committed. They could’ve known they were giving a monster access to children if they’d vetted him and that attack was completely avoidable.

If there were 2 school districts and one did a pre-employment background check on a teacher who molested a child (he had a clean record) and the other just skipped the background check entirely and hired a teacher who had already had 2 convictions for child rape and went on to attack a student, I believe the latter district is then culpable in the crime committed.

They do, but they don't care. Only the unborn child counts, once they're out of the womb they're no longer relevant and can die whenever they please. It is a seriously messed up attitude to have, but alas, these religious extremists believe this.

They do, but they don't care.Only the unborn child counts, once they're out of the womb they're no longer relevant and can die whenever they please.
It is a seriously messed up attitude to have, but alas, these religious extremists believe this.

It’s honestly terrifying. I’m a dude, but it breaks my heart to see my fiancée worrying about whether or not her IUD is going to have legal consequences. We live in the South, and while our state has not presented a bill yet, we’re told that a similar one is in the works. It’s causing rifts in families and tearing communities apart, all because some backward ass old white dudes want to appear “sanctimonious.”

As an Ohioian, the latest bill hitting our legislature is to prevent insurance coverage for any birth control that *could* be considered an abortifacient, including the IUD. Anything that stops the implantation of a fertilized ovum. It's disgusting, but we already have Hobby Lobby setting up the precedent that it doesn't matter if it IS an abortifacient, just that they *believe it to be* an abortifacient....

This is the typical thing most people see. They see the smallest factor of the problem that gives them outrage and they go, the other side is stupid cause they only care about the one thing, you in yourself also only seeing one thing.

Follow the money. The More you defund education, defund healthcare, take away good jobs, and make abortions illegal....the more people go into the military. Which provides education, healthcare, and a job. And you dont see your partner or someone you wanna fuck for a few months so when you do see them you go nuts (literally) more often then not getting them pregnant thus repeating the cycle.

The thing that no one really looks at is the fact that in order for an economy to grow you pretty much have to have a rising population. And when you get rapid declines in population you end up with very very serious problems and also idiocracy situations where it's almost always dumb people repopulating. Either way...here we are. Dont want to end up like the Dutch or the Japanese who are looking at a 50% population decrease within THE NEXT GENERATION!! That is insane and would lead to massive global instability (I mean it might be good for the environment but your grandchildren wont care cause they wont be alive)

So outlaw abortion, take away healthcare, fuck your jobs, get stupid, join the military. The whole world is a racket. They do care. The people you say only care about the unborn children....you are wrong. They want the child to grow up stupid and strong and join the navy and serve and buy and die. They see the bigger picture that gives the world a certain harmonious destruction. They know we are all going down in a handbasket, but it's better than.....its always better than...

The Netherlands (my home country mind you) is seeing a decrease in our native population (as we're having less kids very true), but we have plenty of immigrants to make up for it, and they're also having more kids.
It'll mean the Dutch culture may disappear given time, but the country sure won't.

Which is EXACTLY why you guys are having a massive rise from the "alt right". Look at France, England, the United states. Everywhere this is happening you see this rise of the very behavior I am talking about. the key to modern racism is about obtaining power structures.

But the earlier comment was asking if a child could give birth (as in, physically) at that age. You stated she did, but didn't clarify it was a C section. It's an important part because someone that age cannot give birth naturally, ie. through the vaginal canal.

That's not so. The risk of dying is huge and if not death there's still possibilities for the pelvis breaking, uterine and rectal prolapses, bleeding, ruptures, she may never be able to get another child... Periods beginning doesn't mean the body is actually able to give birth.

The pelvis widens during puberty but that is by no means finished when menstruation starts. Most girls are starting periods at 10 or younger, they are much smaller than adult women, and their pelvis hasn't widened to accommodate delivery.

This isn’t true. you’re actually at a really high risk of death at that age if you try and give birth naturally (many teens die in childbirth in countries where they can’t do c sections) most that age have to have cesareans

This isn’t true. you’re actually at a really high risk of death at that age if you try and give birth naturally, most that age have to have cesareans

She might have a C section if her hips are too small for her to push a baby outta her vagina . I’m just sad that I even have to think about this. My niece is 8 years old :/ cannot even imagine her being pregnant.

The laws aren’t going to be upheld. It’s a great rallying cry for the left and poorly thought out pandering for the right, but no one really believes that these laws are going to pass muster with the SC.

Here’s a hand: take a look at the world around you. Then think back to the late 1960s - 50 years ago. And then think for a moment what would need to happen for things to move that far backwards.

You think one person can turn back 50 years of progress? There’s a small minority being pandered to with these laws. A minority that is shrinking day by day, and only earns this pandering because the group doing the pandering needs to fight for every vote they can get.

They are sliding into irrelevance, and believe me, one person isn’t going to stop that slide.

I’m not sure I even understand this comment? Citizens United nullified parts of McCain-Feingold, which was an 8 year old law. Roe v Wade has been precedent for nearly 50 years, and continues to be supported every time similar bills are passed.

The SC is simply not going to overturn nearly 5 decades of precedent because there’s a new judge, and that assumes these cases make it to that level. It’s likely many will end well before they reach the SC.

The SC is simply not going to overturn nearly 5 decades of precedent because there’s a new judge.

In the grand scheme of humanity this is actually better reporting than more raping. It doesn't make the individuals tragedy any less but rather we are making progress no matter how hard some fight it. 11 years old being raped used to be a fact of life and now it is a tragedy. Let's keep going until it is unheard of.

There was a case in Argentina a couple months ago in which an 11 year old girl was raped by her grandmother's boyfriend, and the govt and medical professionals wouldn't give her an abortion... Her family, doctors, and the law were all against her. She ended up getting a c section prematurely and the baby died.

When there's enough death and carnage and back alley abortions that it finally gets people motivated enough to do something about it. Since Roe v Wade, pro-choice folks haven't had a lot to worry about. In the meantime, anti-choice folks have been building their war chests, roping people in, and building enough momentum to reach the point we're at now.

> Rape and incest exceptions took center stage last week in Alabama, where chaos erupted during a legislative session when state Republicans quickly removed an exception for rape and incest victims in a near-total abortion ban bill. On Tuesday, lawmakers plan to debate and vote on the bill. If it passes, which it's expected to, it will be the most restrictive anti-abortion law approved since the 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that protects a woman's right to an abortion.

​

Maybe don't try to make laws where they don't belong, and there won't be chaos?

Lawmakers who purposefully ignore the constitutionality of the law they're trying to pass should sit in jail and be removed. Multiple states have pulled this stunt multiple times. They need to go after roe v wade if they want to prevent abortions so bad. They are wasting time and money and ignoring real issues

My question is, what kind of idiotic people are like “ yeah let’s make this child, birth a child! And when the baby is born ( if the other child makes it through labor),let’s make her fight her rapist for parental rights” people please register to vote and go vote for people who do not let things like this happen. I think people who are okay with a child giving birth are just outright cruel and this is a violation of human life. These people are obviously stupid and need to go die in a ditch somewhere because they should not be able to make stupid laws like this.

He should never had had access to this child. Those who allowed him in her midsts are partially responsible for her rape. I hope her parents sue the government for letting a rapist into the country.

If you think he’s a rapist because of his race, you’re the racist not me. I think he’s a psychopath who came in illegally because he never would’ve passed any vetting of any sort.his race is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that he was allowed to prey on an American 11 year old who should never have been within 1,000 miles of her.

Neither should any native-born rapist (who are the vast majority of rapists). His immigration status has nothing to do with the fact that he raped a child. It would be no better for him to rape a foreign child, or for her to have been raped by a native-born man.

I agree that his country of origin is not why he raped her. He raped her because he is a rapist.

He should never have had access to this child. Keep advocating letting in more rapists though. It’s unbecoming, in my opinion. The government should protect American children from rapists by vetting them before letting them in. This shouldn’t be controversial.

Says the guy who calls people racist without knowing anything about them.

If you invite a pedophile into your home and he rapes your child, you are partially responsible. The same logic applies here. The race of the attacker is not relevant, just that you gave him access he would not have had without your help.

If women are required to give birth to unwanted children, they should be allowed to sell them. The state doesn’t seem to care what happens to them after they’re born, so selling the child off for whatever the market will bear seems a proper capitalistic answer to the problem. Just a modest proposal.

If people could buy cheap babies, fatten them up, and eat them, they would be solving 2 problems. the unsustainable meat industry could be supplamented with babies from poor families and poor families would no longer be burdened by another child. Eating human babies is actually a pretty moral alternative.

The problem is women can still risk their lives during pregnancy. It wll never be equivalent. Even without death how much do you value your liberty and happiness? What price is high enough? It would enslave the poor by another name

I read the document here and it seems there is. I am not a lawyer nor really that intelligent at all but there does appear to be a process for medical necessity abortions it mentions stuff like they need to only prove that the mother was not coerced. Once again not a lawyer could be wrong just trying to make sure this is actually good reporting.

This is a prime example of how pro-lifers aren’t pro-life, they’re pro-birth. You already can guarantee people don’t give a rat’s ass about that little girl, and they won’t give a rat’s ass about the baby once it’s born.

While this dark triad persists within humanity there is always going to be some level of violence and crime. The question is, how can you reduce the occurrences of violence, and mitigate the damage from this violence occurring?

The best way of minimising the occurrences is obviously precautionary; precaution primarily involves access to good education, mental support, health support, welfare services, etc.

The reactionary way of limiting this damage when it does occur involves segregation, rehabilitation, and preventing a chain of further acts of cruelty stemming from the originating incident.

These methods in combination have been extremely effective; crime rate, especially violent crime, is much, much, lower now than historic levels.

Ironically, increased access to safe legal affordable abortion directly correlated with lower crime rates after roe v wade. Destitution is one of the leading causes of criminality. When a child isn't raised in a good environment it's easier for them to turn to criminality. Single mothers who work full time or more are also targeted by pedophiles. Providing single mothers with safe childcare options would probably help as well as increasing wages/decreasing working hours needed to make ends meet

Societies have to change. Indian people are doing that. We are doing that in other countries. Teaching people to respect other people, discarding patriarchal constructions, taking care of other people. Lifting people out of poverty. For pedophiles there's programs that can help. I mean there's no easy solutions but equality and women's emancipation are the things that work.

In general yes, but I suspect it also depends on whom the rapists is and whom the victim is. A foreign migrant (aka slave) laborer who rapes or is accused of raping a Saudi royal is going to have a hard time.

If cruel and unusual punishments had a big impact on reducing crime; every single country on the planet right now would be virtually crime free, because every single society has tried cruel and unusual punishments before, and they've tried them a lot. If it was such a great solution, they would have just kept using them.

People who commit violent crimes, are frequently psychopaths, or sociopaths, or at least exhibit these traits. These people by their very nature, will always believe that they will escape punishment, this delusion is a significant contributor as to why they commit crimes in the first place.

They generally lack any belief consequences will occur to them, or just display no perception of future consequences of their actions, no matter how likely or severe these consequences are.

These socio/psychopaths are further motivated by an uninhibited gratification in criminal, harmful, sexual, or aggressive impulses. They display an inability to learn from past mistakes. Individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behaviour and lack remorse for their actions.

Sure, you can show psycho/sociopaths images of rapists being flayed alive. But they will 100% believe it will never happen to them, with a complete certainty. So they'll just go ahead and rape anyhow. I mean, after all, they're obviously smarter, wiser and just plain superior to the poor bastard being flayed for rape. How could others not see that?

It has been shown that punishment and behaviour modification techniques do not improve the behaviour of a psychopath.

Trying to stop violent crime with cruel and unusual punishments is pissing into the breeze; it'll just blow back into your own face.

The main people you are actually frightening and hurting with cruel punishments are people who weren't going (or didn't) commit the crimes anyhow.

Do you really honestly believe can prevent psychopaths from raping people by threatening them? I mean, that's a hilarious macho-fantasy right there. Have you actually met any genuinely bad people? I assure you, these people are not afraid of consequences. They'd find your little Reddit tirade absolutely hilarious.

To be honest; the fact you are actively spreading propaganda to try and bring back cruel and unusual punishments, makes you just a risk to society just as the rapist is, both of you require some kind of rehabilitation.

If cruel and unusual punishments had a big impact on reducing crime; every single country on the planet right now would be crime free, because every single country has historically tried cruel and unusual punishments, and they've tried them a lot.

If it was a great solution, they would have just kept doing it.

People who commit violent crimes, are frequently psychopaths, or sociopaths, or at least exhibit these traits. These people by their very nature, will always believe that they will personally escape punishment, this delusion is a significant contributor as to why they commit crimes in the first place.

If cruel and unusual punishments had a big impact on reducing crime; every single country on the planet right now would be crime free, because every single country has tried cruel punishments at one point in their history, and they tried it a lot.

Frequently; people who commit violent crimes, are psychopaths, or sociopaths. These people by their very nature, always (delusionaly) believe they will escape punishment, this is a large part of the reason they commit crimes in the first place.

The psychopath is defined by an uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behaviour and lack remorse for their actions. They generally believe they will always escape punishment, no matter how likely it is they will receive it.

The main people you are actually frightening and hurting with cruel punishments, is the people who weren't going to commit crimes anyhow.

Your opinion demonstrates how deeply society has failed to provide you with a basic level of education.

The fact you are trying to bring back cruel and unusual punishments makes you just as much a risk to society as the rapist, both of you require some kind of rehabilitation.

Yeah yeah. Torture him on live television. Put it on all channels. Yeah yeah. Make it compulsory to watch. His screams and his low grunts when they break his thigh bones with a hammer. Yeah yeah, lemme see yum.

I think your mistaking what I've said as a desire for retribution. Remember that we put down animals when they become dangerous please. Then think on and consider that what paedophiles do is to torture kids. They don't deserve any help or pity, they deserve to be an object of deterrence to the rest of their kind.

I'm not being sarcastic. I would slowly and painfully peel the skin off anyone who hurts my kid. Add salt and glass into their wounds and post the video on the web for the world to see. People who are predatory towards children have no place in society.

Living in India, I recently was out at an event and I met a woman whose younger sister, at 11 years old, is 5'8" (taller than an average Indian man!) and could be a hand model. Her face and demeanor is unmistakably that of a child, but I wouldn't be surprised at horny men conveniently overlooking that detail, regardless of the country.

I shudder to think of the unwanted attention they must both be dealing with. I had a lovely conversation with the younger sister, and she's a brilliant artist ... stories like this break my heart.

Living in India, I recently was out at an event and I met a woman whose younger sister, at 11 years old, is 5'8" and could be a hand model. Her face and demeanor is unmistakably that of a child, but I wouldn't be surprised at horny men conveniently overlooking that detail, regardless of the country.

I shudder to think of the unwanted attention they must both be dealing with. I had a lovely conversation with the younger sister ... stories like this break my heart.

Why do you think they passed it, hon? It's deliberately draconian in order TO bring it to the SCOTUS because with Kavenaugh and Gorsuch marching lockstep with Cadet Bone Spurs and his evil cabal of criminal family members they believe that RvW will be overturned.

If someone believed that the right to life should attach to the fetus at eg. implantation, why would this be surprising? There are people who think that an abortion would be murder. Given that, why should the age of the mother matter?

No. An 11 year old is not always mature enough physically to carry a child to birth. I feel terrible for the 11 year old, because she either got manipulated into that situation, raped, or something else just as fucked up...and then to top it all off, she then has to deal with the emotional distress of a potential miscarriage, abortion, or at worse, give birth at 11 or 12 years old. That 26 year old dude (which if this isn't a second case within a week...I though the dude was 16, and in Ohio) should be castrated publicly and then burned at the torch by his own parents.

I know I'm gonna get downvoted to hell, but I'm just gonna post this anyway, because people here seem to be unable to understand why pro-lifers are pro-life.

Look, the people that want abortion banned are simply against murder. That's it. Whether it's for religious, or moral reasons, that's it. It's not about 'controlling a woman's body' or anything like that, they simply see the unborn child as a separate life,and do not believe it should be illegal to snuff out that life just because you don't want the baby.

If having the baby could cause you to die, then I'm pretty sure almost everyone agrees that that would be a reason to abort, but only then.

The reason they don't see victims of rape as any different, even if they're 11 years old, is because the child growing inside them is blameless, they didn't do anything to deserve to be killed. You'd just be punishing the child for the sins of the father.

I don't get how pro-choice people don't understand this. Pro-lifers just don't want support what they see as murder, and has nothing to do with supporting the child after birth. In their minds, if you didn't want the baby, then you should have used birth control, and if you are unable to use birth control, then you shouldn't be having unprotected sex since you're likely to get pregnant. Obviously in the event of rape like this, it's a different matter, but say they allowed abortions in cases of rape, would you be for it then? No, you wouldn't, so bringing it up isn't a real argument against the abortion laws.

My fiancee is heavily pro-life, from conception, but I personally don't give a flying fuck about what people decide to do in the confines of the law. I'm just saying the truth about pro-lifers reasoning.

Pro-choice people and pro-lifers will never see eye to eye because they both see the unborn child as two different things. One sees it as either a 'clump of cells', or 'part of the woman's body and not autonomous', and the other sees it as a 'fully separate life with a soul and a beating heart (after 6 weeks obviously)',and therefore cannot agree because destroying a clump of cells', and destroying a human life are two radically different things.

/end rant

*Edit, the top comment was saying that in this specific case, they'd advocate to allow the rapist parental rights. Advocating for a rapist to be able to get parental rights is obviously an absolutely retarded idea and anyone who believes that should be the case is crazy.

Pro-choice people and pro-lifers will never see eye to eye because they both see the unborn child as two different things. One sees it as either a 'clump of cells', or 'part of the woman's body and not autonomous', and the other sees it as a 'fully separate life with a soul and a bearing heart (after 6 weeks obviously)',and therefore cannot agree because destroying a clump of cells', and destroying a human life are two radically different things.

This is a typically smug 'well actually...' response from the pro-forced-birth lobby. "See, we don't actually hate women - we just think abortion is murder!"

Fine. Let's take you at your word. Why haven't you prosecuted the employees of fertility clinics who throw out thousands of fertilized eggs on a monthly basis? Why haven't you prosecuted women who've had miscarriages under manslaughter statutes for unintentional murder of their children? Why haven't you used the RICO act to prosecute all doctors, nurses, patients and SOs who've been involved in any way in a woman's abortion? Why haven't you outlawed birth control and prosecuted anyone who purchases it with attempted murder? Why aren't you also violently opposed to the death penalty?

You do none of those things, because it isn't about murder. It's about controlling women's bodies. It's about enforcing your patriarchal and twisted 'christian' values on other people - most of them poor and non-white. And because you know that when you start talking about punishing women for having abortions you get massive blowback no matter how 'sympathetic' your politicians might claim to be to your cause. Even the blowhard moron Trump backpedaled furiously after suggesting that women who have abortions should be punished.

If you think it's murder, then be consistent and do everything I mentioned above. If not, then you're full of shit and just trying to provide cover for the fundamentalist fascists that gleefully masturbate with copies of The Handmaid's Tale.

No one can force you to donate blood even if a patient right in front of you will die without it. Same with any organ. You can't harvest a dead persons organs without consent either. What right does an embryo or a fetus have to use and alter its mother's body? Pregnancy changes you forever and the US has the highest maternal death rate in the developed world and then some

One sees it as either a 'clump of cells', or 'part of the woman's body and not autonomous', and the other sees it as a 'fully separate life with a soul and a beating heart'

You just proved my point. Pro-lifers do not believe it is just a 'part of a womans body'. That's why you cannot have a reasonable discussion about it, because you believe two fundamentally different things about the unborn child.

And also, like I said,

Pro-lifers just don't want support what they see as murder, and has nothing to do with supporting the child after birth.

So saying I should have to give you my liver doesn't equate. That'd be the equivalent of me giving you help keeping the baby alive, whereas pro-lifers simply want you to not kill the baby.

It is legal to allow someone to die by not giving them use of your body.

If person A goes out and stabs person B nearly to death, person B is rushed to hospital and the only person they can get hold of with compatible blood to donate is person A. Person A still cannot be forced to donate blood to person B even if they are the direct cause of person B's situation, and person B will die without the blood donation. Attempted murder of a sentient person is a lot more cruel than wanting rights to your own body (which another is using against your will), and a blood donation is far less invasive and faster than 9 months of pregnancy, not to mention the lasting physical and psychological consequences afterwards. But they still cannot be forced, even parents cannot be forced to donate blood/organs to their own children, why should women with unwanted pregnancies have lesser rights? Abortion is denying another human the use of your body which is allowed, abortion is no different, removing the foetus even if it cannot survive outside of the body.

IF you can remove said infection from the host - then you have a right to decide what is done with said infection,

Until such time - your liver is needed.

Also - you do realize that over 40% of all fertilized ovum never implant in the uterus, but are flushed from the body during a woman's natural menses. That means YOUR MOM is a murderer, according to your ridiculous "life begins at conception" sloptwaddle.

They are still separate issues with separate reasons to hold the viewpoints. The fact that there is a strong correlation between people with those beliefs does not change that. One does not necessitate the other.

That's the same sort of reasoning that leads people to day [race] people are criminals because of a high crime rate from that race.

I guess I don’t understand how they are two separate issues. Death and killing is death and killing no matter the circumstances.

So to say on one hand that the baby forming in a woman’s womb is protected to the sanctity of life. Then why is that person getting put to death not awarded the same basic human rights for the right to life?

I'm pro-life and not for the death penalty, but the justiication I've heard is that the people serving the death penalty are there for their own choices that they made. The unborn are presumed innocent.

Another thing to maybe consider is that not everyone who is pro-life is religious, so if you are using "sanctity of life" in a religious sense, then that again is a seperate from being pro-choice.

Pro-choicers (like myself) doesn't believe abortion is murder because we don't believe life starts the moment of fertilasation. At that point (and some time thereafter) it's just a clump of cells. I think abortion is morally equal to exfoliation.

I get the reasoning behind pro-choice. I'm just trying to make the other dude understand why someone would advocate for pro-life and death penalty at the same time. Because in their eyes, it's a baby who has a right to live, while a murderer or rapist deserves to die (in their perspective)

It doesn't explain why pro-lifers tend to be pro death penalty though.. It just suggest that there's hypocrisy on both sides (which I don't believe there is since most pro-choicers don't consider a fertilised egg to be life).

I know that most pro life advocate that murder is wrong, there for abortion being a living soul inside of a mother is murder.

But killing someone of a crime they have committed is not murder. And the person or persons who pull the switch, push the button or pull the trigger are not committing murder, they are just carrying out a lawful order.

But on the flip side, pro life feel that the thing growing inside is just a clump of cells forming, regardless of the existence of a heartbeat or other factors, that being inside the mother is still in fact part of the person carrying it so can not be its own “soul”.

So in their eyes it is not murder, they are just removing a “tumor” from their body as if it were the same as removing cancer. They advocate against the death penalty because they see it as murder. And feel that murder in any sense regardless of the crime committed does not warrant killing, but rather serving the remainder of their time locked in cage. And anyone who does preform the killing of that person put to death by law is also committing murder and there for should also be punished for murder.

This is my understanding or lack their of on the subject, I could be completely off and not actually understand any of it.

I can't speak for other pro-lifers, but in my experience, it's because those that have murdered, do not deserve to live, whereas those that are unborn, have done no ill deeds, so they're two different things.

I think we all just need to sit down and decide where the threshold is for rights-bearing autonomous human being. Is it gamete, zygote, heartbeat, X months, birth? Heck, a lot of other species hatch or give birth to fully functioning, mobile offspring. Human infants come out completely useless for a long time, like they they were taken out of the oven too soon. So there's even some room for argument that the life threshold for our purposes could come after birth. It's all arbitrary, as a society we just have to agree on a line we're not willing to cross and then make the laws.

We can't legislate whether a clump of cells attached to a uterus has a soul or not, but for the purposes of the medical field we do need to decide at what point that clump of cells gains human status and the rights associated with it. Natural birth seems like the obvious choice, as that's the woman's body officially separating from the parasitic entity, but we'll all have different opinions about it. It can't be helped, but the determination needs to be made somewhere. I hope we can decide soon, so that we avoid more harm to women.

Yes, you colossal dumbass, she might just have trouble seeking help from either of them. Ffs.

It took me months to tell anyone what happened to me both as a kid and an adult. I don't expect a child to be able to tell their parents right away.

An 11 year old should not be expected to seek the morning after pill from being raped; abortion should be freely available to her. Saying she 'still' has the option of the morning after pill implies the pregnancy is her responsibility.

In retaliation to these laws, I think women should carry their unwanted pregnancies and give birth to the unwanted babies. And then I think they should drop off the baby, fully loaded down with explosives, on their local legislature's doorstep.

If they want to pass these ridiculous laws that paint women who get abortions or who experience miscarriages as murdering monsters... if they want to strip women (or little girls, as it seems) away from their bodily autonomy... then it seems to me women would be well in their right to use all of that against them. Turn what these lawmakers intended as a means to control women's bodies into a weapon against them. It would certainly get the message across, imo. And it beats the hell out of women being the only ones paying for these idiotic policies by risking their lives with back alley abortions while the lawmakers get off scot free.

i know making assumptions on the internet is dumb, but there is no way you are a woman.

​

you have no idea how traumatic childbirth is IN ADULTS. You are pushing an entire fucking baby, which are really damn large mind you, out of a hole that is "tight" with your spindly pencil dick.

​

Imagine a little girl whos body isn't ready for it. At this age I was reading pony club and drawing pokemon all day. I don't know what i need to get it through your head, but CHILDREN ARE NOT DESIGNED TO BEAR CHILDREN IN ANY FUCKING CAPACITY. Imagine how many more complications that poor girl would be forced to go through. And that's just the physical side of things. Rape fucks you up at any age, but especially as a kid. Then having to deal with the pregnancy is a whole other beast. Childbirth? If the poor kid wasn't already diagnosed with half of the DSM, they are now. All that suffering, but "every war has its casualties", right?

​

you disgust me. not just the sheer ignorance, but the arrogance in which you think you know everything. Seriously. What the actual fuck is wrong with you. I genuinely worry for your mental health, please go see a psychiatrist.

​

I always try to take the mindset of "it's ok, they just don't know any better, just teach them the error of their ways and try to meet a compromise". but its not even fucking worth it. Maybe you've got some severe triple threat autism-down syndrome-mental retardation, maybe you honestly don't have the brain faculty to comprehend the fucked up thing you just said.

Just proof positive that this has nothing to do with the health and safety of the child, but is entirely about imposing their religious beliefs on women.

I've long thought all this does is create a harsher impact for single mothers, who end up turning to charitable establishments for assistance, one of which being the church. Now you've created a farm system, as you've roped in a single woman, and begun the process to indoctrinate the child. It's horse shit.